[DEFEATED] Repeal GAR #141- Permit Male Circumcision

[Imperializt Russia]

It can't choose.
It's a baby.

It can't even talk for another year, in humans.

Would you care to provide a medical entry on the pain of a circumcision procedure? A brief, relatively non-invasive procedure that the child will not even remember?

Because (a)just because a painful event is not remembered does not mean it's okay dor it to happen in the first place, and (b)since in many cultures it is first and foremost a religious ritual before a medical procedure, and the newborn hasn't learned to think for itself, it is a form of indoctrination and is not okay. I wasn't saying the baby can't choose- I just don't think that little detail makes it okay for parents to decide to chop off a part of their son's foreskin.

Judaism is one of the few religions to run through bloodlines. For Jews, it is obviously not a "little detail". Whilst there has been debate lately over whether it is necessary for "Jewish Identity", it is still considered a prerequisite for heaven.

I agree that the custom of performing it on newborns can be controversial.
As such, I'd rather that any replacement you draft, rather than make it the "age of majority", that it be relevant to some religion's ceremony of manhood.
Judaism's ceremony of manhood typically occurs at about fourteen, and some Islamic ceremonies occur at "six to eleven", usually under anaesthetic.
I believe that a child could be reasonably be expected to make personal decisions above the age of six and below the age of fourteen.

[Eireann Fae]

"We'd support shifting the bris to the bar mitzvah, or cultural equivalent, provided the boy is willing to do the ceremony in the first place - not forced into it by family."

[Bodobol]

Because (a)just because a painful event is not remembered does not mean it's okay dor it to happen in the first place, and (b)since in many cultures it is first and foremost a religious ritual before a medical procedure, and the newborn hasn't learned to think for itself, it is a form of indoctrination and is not okay. I wasn't saying the baby can't choose- I just don't think that little detail makes it okay for parents to decide to chop off a part of their son's foreskin.

Judaism is one of the few religions to run through bloodlines. For Jews, it is obviously not a "little detail". Whilst there has been debate lately over whether it is necessary for "Jewish Identity", it is still considered a prerequisite for heaven.

I agree that the custom of performing it on newborns can be controversial.
As such, I'd rather that any replacement you draft, rather than make it the "age of majority", that it be relevant to some religion's ceremony of manhood.
Judaism's ceremony of manhood typically occurs at about fourteen, and some Islamic ceremonies occur at "six to eleven", usually under anaesthetic.
I believe that a child could be reasonably be expected to make personal decisions above the age of six and below the age of fourteen.

I guess I could go for that as a compromise- so long as the child makes the decision and not the parents. I'm not quite sure how I'd word that though.

[Bodobol]

Should I go ahead and submit this yet?

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say give it another day or two.

I've not seen many people offer suggestions, but three days and change isn't a lot of time to be up for a proposal.

[Hirota]

Should I go ahead and submit this yet?

I would - but not do any campaigning. Do it as a test run, keep track of any delegates who endorse, and then when you do your proper run, make sure you TG them thanking them for their previous support and pointing out the new version you are campaigning for

[Bodobol]

Should I go ahead and submit this yet?

I would - but not do any campaigning. Do it as a test run, keep track of any delegates who endorse, and then when you do your proper run, make sure you TG them thanking them for their previous support and pointing out the new version you are campaigning for

I'll do that because I tend to be a pretty impatient person. Thanks for the advice.

[Ius]

As you compare circumcision to an "Unnecessary procedure" this is an unnecessary proposal.

[Bodobol]

As you compare circumcision to an "Unnecessary procedure" this is an unnecessary proposal.

How so?

[Imperializt Russia]

As you compare circumcision to an "Unnecessary procedure" this is an unnecessary proposal.

He said it was "medically" unnecessary.
Which, in the case of religious circumcision, it is.

[Ertae]

The resolution in question allows for regulation. Nations that wish to forbid circumcision of individuals who cannot consent, like children, may still do so.

[Rotwood]

We would be for this repeal, as long as there is no replacement, because there are a lot of conflicting opinions here. Whilst we understand sometimes it is a necessary medical procedure, most of the time it is for purely religious or cosmetic reasons, and that the individuals should have the choice to do it when they come of the age to chose things for themselves, not forced upon them by parents or religious values when they don't have the option to protest.

[Opaloka]

The Workers' & Soldiers' Government is opposed to the mutilation of any be they man,woman or child in the name of religion or 'culture'.

We welcome this repeal and if the 'patients' act allows parents to mutilate their children in the name of religion or culture in lands less enlightened than ours, then that should be repealed also.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Workers' & Soldiers' Government is opposed to the mutilation of any be they man,woman or child in the name of religion or 'culture'.

We welcome this repeal and if the 'patients' act allows parents to mutilate their children in the name of religion or culture in lands less enlightened than ours, then that should be repealed also.

The repeal is to pave the way for a replacement piece of legislation (note that a repeal on its own will completely deregulate the legislation topic) which, I suggested, made it the patient's choice to undergo a procedure, whether as a religious ceremony or otherwise, at that culture's relevant manhood ceremony.

[Saveyou Island]

Seriously? Show me an argument I haven't seen yet, instead of rambling about protecting the babies penis like dozens of other people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Seriously? Show me an argument I haven't seen yet, instead of rambling about protecting the babies penis like dozens of other people.

I don't think that people have an actual issue with the procedure and its reasons, they object to the reasoning of religious or cultural practice ("non-necessary", practically speaking) on infants who cannot consent.

If infants could give informed consent on the eighth day of their birth, I'm sure there'd be no issue.

[Opaloka]

The Workers' & Soldiers' Government is opposed to the mutilation of any be they man,woman or child in the name of religion or 'culture'.

We welcome this repeal and if the 'patients' act allows parents to mutilate their children in the name of religion or culture in lands less enlightened than ours, then that should be repealed also.

The repeal is to pave the way for a replacement piece of legislation (note that a repeal on its own will completely deregulate the legislation topic) which, I suggested, made it the patient's choice to undergo a procedure, whether as a religious ceremony or otherwise, at that culture's relevant manhood ceremony.

We believe that the position of the W&SG is clear, no mutilation of any citizen or child in the name of religion or culture. Our security services spend much time & effort defending our peace loving & enlightened people from the influence of foriegn based religion & cultures and their degenerate practices. We would like to see the GA act to forbid harm in the name of religion or culture.

[Imperializt Russia]

A self-elective procedure for personal choice is "degenerate harm" these days?

[Araraukar]

A self-elective procedure for personal choice is "degenerate harm" these days?

*hides her ear piercings*

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Btw, if this ever reaches quorum I'll draft a replacement resolution which allows consenting, informed males above the age of majority to get circumcised.

Too bad that's what PMC already does. Any nation wishing to do so may still restrict or ban infant circumcision as much as they like under PMC. PRA's mandate that medical consent "may" (not must) be given by a parent on behalf of their child is pretty clear on this. And if legislators within the GA would stop hyperventilating over "penis mutilation" and come to understand this basic fact, then we wouldn't have to waste so much precious time on errant repeals of perfectly reasonable legislation.

[Belzia]

Seriously? Show me an argument I haven't seen yet, instead of rambling about protecting the babies penis like dozens of other people.

This perfectly describes how I feel.

[Kemelom]

While we found this proposal interesting, we cannot support the repeal of GAR #141. We find fault with the claim that data regarding the health benefits is inconclusive; rather, our studies show that while it isn't a necessary procedure, circumcision reduces the rates of various urinary, penile, and reproductive diseases. Since this issue now moves from solely being solely social/religious to medical, the parents of the newborn have the right to choose medical action.

It would be improper in our opinion to support the repeal of the resolution on the basis that it is a painful procedure. If this criterion were to qualify, it would criminalize more beneficial health procedures, including, but not limited to, vaccination, blood sampling, and patellar reflex testing.

Finally, while the author of the resolution is correct in saying that the newborn does not have the mental capacity to choose a religion, the newborn similarly does not have the mental capacity to choose its medical treatment. As stated before, that right belongs to the parents, and consequently it is parental consent, not that of the infant, that qualifies for circumcision.

For the aforementioned reasons, we regrettably cannot support this proposal and encourage other delegates to act similarly.

[Rotwood]

rather, our studies show that while it isn't a necessary procedure, circumcision reduces the rates of various urinary, penile, and reproductive diseases.

How many of those could be prevented by good hygiene and the use of information and prophylactics?

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Anti-religious bigotry hiding behind the flimsy facade of "children's rights". This has failed before, and we shall work to see that it fails again.

[Christian Democrats]

I mounted a counter-campaign against this proposal, and it seems to have failed. The anti-circumcision crowd is obstinate. I was accused of spreading lies by providing links to the websites of the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other neutral sources. In turn, I received links to a number of "stop circumcision" websites.